On debts and bonds: a human view

The question of debt is not easy to approach. There is a sense where it is undeniably about money, yet there is no creditor who does not take into account what that money is for. 

To begin with let us state that debt is a social obligation, a kind of bond, one of many which hold society together. More than anything else, debt is an article of trust. 

Why is this question, if it is one, broached in this way? Well, someone once said that all philosophy arises in disappointment; a pessimistic view if there ever was one, but it is hard to deny that disappointment is indeed a powerful stimulus to thought. 

In retrospect, to the one on the receiving end - disappointment makes us reassess how we place our care. 

A sharp mind would undoubtedly, at this phrase, hear the ring of coin in how I deploy the word 'care'. And, there is a sense in which debt is intimately connected with it; to say nothing of interest, an aspect which any writer always  takes care to solicit from the reader via the article at hand. 

At this juncture, having placed before you the circumstances of  how I approach this situation - let me declare that the dream, whether conscious or unconscious - behind the construction of the word, and the act of naming, may also have been one such bond - however difficult it may be, in our age of commerce, to come to grips with this simple fact of human kindness.

And, this really may not have been a very recent development; placing on the table (literally or metaphorically) the goods which may guarantee the faith of the creditor, is an act which may be the minimal degree of labour required, to solicit consideration. This, while having been abstracted from the situation of a bond, may indeed overcome the determinations of its context. 

Allow me to introduce to you, how I was introduced, at least in my approach, to some of these concepts. Marx, and his critique of political economy has undoubtedly been a major influence, and one I may return to; but, as I have gathered thus far, even from the vantage of his critique, thinking of capital as a way to use money to make more money, may in itself be incomplete. I would like to be the first to point out here that this is a facet that Marx himself was painfully aware of. His critique, after all, critiques precisely these coordinates. 

In my arguments in classrooms as a college student, a point of attrition which reached a near religious fervor was regarding the position of money, in any post-capitalist society, were there to be one. 

A youthful, though closetly cynical utopianism I encountered - pressed the case that in a truly post-capitalist society we may be able to return to a system of barter. 

I would apologize to any serious thinker or student for the proceeding argument for it is my belief that either common sense or the first three chapters of Capital would  make such efforts entirely unnecessary, yet, for whatever reason, were that not possible, let me state this. Money itself is an object used by humans, it is a token. One, whose trade facilitates the exchange of commodities. Money itself is a commodity. A reason why we use it is to make exchanges commiserable. Let us say that I want to rent a villa for a few days, and I am willing to offer you my fridge as payment. The cumbersomeness of such a trade is avoided by the use of a token, or indeed credit. 

It was the insight of Marx, to recognise in the trade between two products of human labour, the need for a third mediating instrument, as a form of quantifying the labour, or how dear the said article may be to the proprietor, or maker, and to compensate him or her for its loss, with a currency, which in turn may be used to satisfy some wants or desires that the person may have. In other words, if I really like a toy and the friend is unwilling to part with it in exchange for any of mine, I may have to offer him something which he could use, to acquire whatever it is that he may want; another commodity. The medium that makes this exchange commiserable, that makes it quantifiable, is money. 

Now, while the observations I draw from to make my argument are commonplace, you may imagine the difficulty in trying to convey this to an emotionally charged utopianism unwilling to consider the bare pragmatics of our life and desires. To simplify, let me state that money is an article or instrument which makes two (or more) desires commiserable. 

Now, this is not to say that it is the only way to do so. It is however the most widely accepted means of doing so. Let me also state, that this, observation, argument, however you may term it, while arising from perhaps the figurehead of communism - Karl Marx, in the first three chapters of Capital, which were incidentally published separately in a book titled 'A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), are also echoed by 'fierce' anti-communists - Ayn Rand for instance. She understands that when a trade is not adequately compensated, it creates antagonism between the parties concerned. Money hence remains a way of mediating between our wants, of keeping them at a distance, so that we can go about with our daily shopping or whatever. 

Having stated this, I would like to add that the concept of debt as a bond shared between people, is not always merely monetary. 

Someone, a stranger, may show me a simple kindness in a foreign land, like pointing me to the nearest phone booth or metro station, and, I may never see them again, however, if I do - I may remember who they are by that deed. 

There are of course, more intimate bonds, such as those of family, between parent and child; and those between families - forming, in whatever fashion, the semblance of a community. Here, I would state, that a debt, in essence, is a promise. Keeping these helps communities grow a little warmer, and friendlier. 

Now, the picture that I have painted, of a prim and proper marketplace on one hand, and communities and families on the other, or the public sphere and the private sphere, as classified by sociologists is as it stands, woefully inadequate.

A good, and 'idiotic' jew would point out how does someone earn money here? An excellent question - yet one whose answer will unavoidably have to address the role of central banks, banks and employers; without which no adequate answer will be presentable. 

There is a way in which debts and bonds will reappear there, but it may not be the same if only inasmuch as there will be marked differences, and the meditations concerned will be between departments, institutions, and (why not?) genres.